United
Nations and the Tamils
issue:

Moves by
a few Western nations to take up
the ethnic conflict to the United
Nations Security Council with a
view to bring about a resolution,
is a welcome move. The conflict
in Sri Lanka has reached the
critical stage, where the United
Nations Organization has to
intervene to bring about a
mutually acceptable frame-work
resolution to end the crisis in
the country.

Already,
the Sri Lankan government has
internationalized the ethnic
conflict, whilst claiming the
conflict as an internal matter.
The contradictory posture of the
Sri Lankan government is a
deleterious calculated move to
desist the international
community showing interest in the
sorry plight of the Tamils.

Sri Lankan
President Chandrika Bandaranaike
Kumaratunge in her last
appearance at the 53rd General
Assembly of the United Nations,
held in September 1998, drag the
issue of the ethnic conflict to
floor of the UN General Assembly.
In her address, she declared,
My Government is firmly
committed in redressing ethnic
grievances peacefully through
political discussion and
negotiations in which leaders of
all communities, political
parties and other groups
participated. Only the LTTE -
(Liberation Tigers of Tamil
Eelam), chooses to prowl the path
of violence resorting to terror
to achieve their goals which they
alone espouse. She went on,
as usual name-calling and
leveling charges against the
Tamil Tigers (LTTE).

Since the
Presidents declaration in
the General Assembly, nearly two
years have elapsed, but still the
President could not bring about a
peaceful resolution to ethnic
conflict. The Tamils has no
representation in the UN
Organization. Unfortunately, to
date, UN failed to devise the
necessary mechanism, to get the
other side of the story, to put
the record straight.

Sri Lankan
government, relentlessly seeks
military and arms' assistance
from numerous countries, to
subdue the Tamil Tigers.
According to reports, numerous
countries have come forward to
supply arms, air-crews, military
personnel in the pretext of
advisors, other technical staffs
and training facilities. Thus,
those countries are getting
directly involved in the ethnic
conflict, well aware of the fact
that, their involvement amounted
to aiding and abetting the
genocidal onslaught against the
Tamils, a nation which struggles
to exerts it right of
self-determination.

Arming
states involved in ethnic
cleansing amounts to the re-entry
of the cold war epoch in a new
version. Earlier the world
breathed the sigh of relief that
the cold war ended, but by
supplying arms and ammunitions
and providing training facilities
to countries involved in unjust
wars, world is alarmingly
reminded of the continuance of
the cold war culture. Though the
world begins to witness less and
less of the war between states,
but it becomes apparent that, far
more people have been killed
recently in civil wars and ethnic
cleansing, undertaken by states
against its own people and by
those people who struggle
establish their own identity by
means of self-determination.

Sovereignty
- the inalienable rights of the
people.

When the
question of UN intervention
arises, Sri Lankan government
emphasizes the issue of Sovereignty,
to prevent such interventions by
the UN Security Council. So far
the Government has successfully
shadow-boxed to prevent the
conflict issue being discussed,
but as situation worsens, the
issue warrants UN Security
Councils immediate
intervention and focus.

Recently,
Lakshman Kadirgamar, the Sri
Lankan Foreign Minister was asked
by a weekly English spreadsheet
in Colombo (Sunday Times) about
moves to get the UN Security
Council involved in the ethnic
conflict.

(Question)
But Mr. Minister, we
understand there are moves to
bring a resolution at the UN
Assembly by a Western nation to
discuss the Sri Lankan situation?

In reply,
Lakshman Kadirgamar said as
follows:

(Answer)
Well. UN Secretary General
Kofi Annan opened the debate last
year at the General Assembly
saying the time has come when
sovereignty is not paramount, and
that it will have to yield to
human rights. During the debate
the West was in favor of the UN
Secretary Generals
position, but Russia, China,
Central Europe, Non-Aligned
Nations, ourselves, we were dead
against it. Now we have a
situation in Siera Leone, which
is much worse than ours. The
British have come in. A UN
peace-keeping force is there and
its an un-holy mess there.
But this has wetted appetite of
some powers. The Chinese and
Russians will not allow the UN
Security Council getting involved
in Sri Lanka. This our internal
situation - We appreciate the
help of friendly countries, but
we must maintain our dignity and
self-respect however small a
country we are, whatever
difficulties we have got
ourselves into. Our position
still is that sovereignty is
paramount.

Though the
Foreign Minister replied, he
avoided the pertinent question
and replied about sovereignty,
which was not raised. It is
important to note that, he had
not denied of the move by a
Western nation to bring up the
Sri Lankan issue to the UN
Security Council. Foreign
Minister also has failed to take
cognizance of an important aspect
about Sovereignty, that means, an
independent political authority
or supremacy of authority, which
flows from the inalienable rights
of the people.

Thomas
Jefferson (1743-1842), the third
President of the United States of
America (1801-1809) said, All
men are created equal and
independent and from the equal
creation, they deserve rights -
rights inherent and inalienable,
among which are the preservation
of life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness.

The
Constitution of Sri Lanka
(adopted on 22 May 1972) states:
Chapter 1 - The People, The State
and Sovereignty:

3 In the
Republic of Sri Lanka,
Sovereignty is in the people and
is inalienable.

Again in
the current constitution -The
Constitution of the Democratic
Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka -
1978: Chapter 1 - The people, The
State and Sovereignty:

3.In the
Republic of Sri Lanka the
Sovereignty is in the People and
it is inalienable.

Sovereignty
flows in drops from every
individual in a country, which
subsequently confluent and
converges into the iron grip of a
government. Therefore, it becomes
apparent that the sovereignty is
vested with people and the state
has no authority to usurp the
inalienable right inherent with
the people to fight a section of
the people. If a section of the
people in a state, shows
outwardly their discontent with
the form of government adopted,
they have every right to openly
exhibit their displeasure,
dissatisfaction and resent. Also
they possess the inalienable
right to seek for secession. The
so called sovereignty claimed by
the Minister of Foreign Affairs
is of non-existence in nature,
when an ethnic group disclaimed
their Sri Lankan nationality and
posits with a distinctive
nationality - The Tamils.

Millennium
Report by Koffi Annan

On 4 April
2000, UN Secretary General Kofi
Annan outlined his vision of the
United Nations in the 21st
century - a world body that would
use smart sanctions to punish
dictators, while sparing innocent
civilians. The proposal contained
in a Millennium Report,
represents Koffi Annans
untiring effort, yet to shape the
future of the United Nations, as
an institution that safeguards
the rights, interest and
well-being of the people and not
the states.

The 57-page
report, according to Kofi Annan
is a, Attempt to present a
comprehensive account of the main
challenges facing humanity as the
world enters the 21st century,
combined with plan of action for
dealing with them. He
further commented about his
report, That may sound
absurdly ambitious, but if the
United Nations does not attempt
to chart a course for the worlds
people in the first decades of
the new millennium, who will?

The report
acknowledged that, the United
Nations has not kept up with
changes in the international
order. To bring the United
Nations up to date, Koffi Annan
wants it to focus on the people,
rather than on the member
governments that has
traditionally been its
constituents. This would allow it
to side with citizens against
governments in Kosovo-type cases.

He said
that, he hopes the report would
stimulate debate among world
leaders who will meet for two
days in New York, starting 6
September 2000, to develop a long
term future agenda for the United
Nations. Relevant excerpts of the
report of Kofi Annan, who dealt
severely the belated argument
raised by Lakshman Kadirgamar
regarding Sovereignty, under
sub-para. C. Addressing the
dilemma of intervention, is
as follows:

215.
In my address to the General
Assembly last September, I called
on Member States to unite in the
pursuit of more effective
policies to stop organized mass
murder and egregious violations
of human rights. Although I
emphasized that intervention
embraced a wide continuum of
responses, from diplomacy to
armed action, it was the latter
option that generated most
controversy in the debate that
followed.

216.
Some critics were concerned that
the concept of 
humanitarian intervention
could become a cover for
gratuitous interference in the
internal affairs of sovereign
states. Others felt that it might
encourage secessionist movements
deliberately to provoke
governments into committing gross
violations of human rights in
order to trigger external
interventions that would aid
their cause. Still others noted
that there is little consistency
in the practice of intervention,
owing to its inherent
difficulties and costs as well as
perceived national interests -
except that weak states are far
more likely to be subjected to it
than strong ones.

217.
I recognize both the force and
the importance of these
arguments. I also accept that the
principles of sovereignty and
non-interference offer vital
protection to small and weak
states. But to the critics I
would pose this question: if
humanitarian intervention is,
indeed, an unacceptable assault
on sovereignty, how should we
respond to a Rwanda, to a
Srebrenica - to gross and
systematic violations of human
rights that offend every precept
of our common humanity?

218.
We confront a real dilemma. Few
would disagree that both the
defence of humanity and the
defence of sovereignty are
principles that must be
supported. Alas, that does not
tell us which principle should
prevail when they are in
conflict.

219.
Humanitarian intervention is a
sensitive issue, fraught with
political difficulty and not
susceptible to easy answers. But
surely no legal principle - not
even sovereignty - can ever
shield crimes against humanity.
Where such crimes occur and
peaceful attempts to halt them
have been exhausted, the Security
Council has a moral duty to act
on behalf of the international
community. The fact that we
cannot protect people everywhere
is no reason for doing nothing
when we can. Armed intervention
must always remain the option of
last resort, but in the face of
mass murder it is an option that
cannot be relinquished.

UN
precedents:

Recently,
Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) of
Tamil Nadu, India, at its
emergency meeting appealed to the
United Nations to intervene and
help to create an independent
Eelam, so that war in the island
would come to an end. This appeal
of the PMK is not without
precedent.

The
creation of the State of Israel (
in Hebrew Medinat Yisrael,
Arabic: Dalwat Israil, Latin:
Israel - area 7992 sq.miles not
including 7000 sq.miles of
occupied territories including
Syrias Golan Heights in the
north, West Bank of Jordan in the
East and Gaza Strip in the
South-west formerly administered
by Egypt, is an important
milestone that deserves deeper
analysis of its implication at
this point of time.

Britains
inability to reconcile the
conflicting demands of the Jewish
and Arab communities led the
British government to request
that the "Question of
Palestine" be placed on the
agenda of the United Nations
General Assembly (April 1947). A
special committee was constituted
to draft proposals concerning the
country's future. On 29 November
1947, the General Assemblys
proposal to partition Palestine
into two states, one Jewish, one
Arab. It would involve in effect,
recognizing UN General Assembly
Resolution 181, the vote that had
served as a birth certificate for
the State of Israel. The UN
resolution helped in the
emergence of the State of Israel
on 14 May 1948, when the British
Mandate came to an end, but the
Arabs rejected the resolution.

Later, on
14 October 1974, the United
Nations General Assembly resolved
in favor of inviting the
Palestinian Liberation
Organization (PLO) to join in the
discussion, as
representatives of the
Palestinian people, in the
General Assembly. It was the
first opportunity the PLO ever
got to present the case of the
Palestinian people to the world
on record. The PLO was a banned
organization in the United States
of America, however Chairman
Yasser Arafat (Mohammed
Abdel-Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa
al-Husseini is his name in the
university record; born in Cairo
to the Palestinian parents on 4
August 1929. Yasser is the nick
name, but in Arabic it means -
care-free or easy going; also he
is called: Abu Ammar) visited New
York and addressed the UN General
Assembly.

When he
entered the General Assembly to
address in his drab fatigues,
bone colored jacket, dark glasses
and the ever present checkered
keffieyeh - head dress, folded as
ever in the shape of Palestine,
the members gave him a standing
ovation. Once positioned at the
UN lectern, he made use of the
unparalleled opportunity to bring
the grievances of the
Palestinians to the worlds
attention.

Today
I have come bearing an olive
branch and a freedom fighters
gun. Do not let the olive branch
fall from my hand. I repeat: do
not let the olive branch fall
from my hand. .. I am a rebel and
freedom is my cause,
proclaimed Yasser Arafat in his
maiden address in the General
Assembly, on 13 November 1974,
which reverberated all over. This
goes to proof that already
precedent has been set by
inviting the PLO to attend as
representatives of the
Palestinian people to the UN and
to participate in the discussion
that dealt on the Palestinian
issue.

The debate
on the Palestinian issue lasted
for nine days in the General
Assembly. The crowning movement
arrived on 22 November 1974, when
the General Assembly adopted two
resolutions - endorsing the right
of self-determination for the
Palestinians and granting to the
PLO, the observer status in UN
institutions.

The
international community is aware
that the Tamils opposes the
social and political system
prevalent in the island. They
have successfully challenged the
Sri Lankan governments
claim of sovereignty for the past
51 years. The issue of
sovereignty is under dispute, as
the Tamils have overwhelmingly
rejected the overlordship of the
government. Earlier, they
registered their rejection
through passive and democratic
channels. Once the moderate
politician failed then, the Tamil
militants took up the challenge
through armed conflict that they
consider it an extension of the
political process.

Sri Lankan
tragedy.

Legal
suppression, social
discrimination and the military
subjugation unleashed, tested the
limits of theirs restrains to
clamor against controls. Finally,
through armed struggle they have
challenged and disputed any claim
over them, ultimately resulting
in the demand for a UN Security
Councils binding frame-work
resolution, mutually acceptable
to both parties to the conflict.

This is Sri
Lanka today, a story of human
tragedy. How much more pain the
Tamils should endure due to
Government's impalpable policy of
"War for Peace" Daily
the electronic and print media
bombards with gory details of the
on-going military campaigns. It
is nauseating to witness a
government elected to safeguard
the people, adopts genocidal
measures to annihilate a section
of the community.

War is a
cruel campaign of almost
unrelieved barbarity. Some
political thinkers speak of
just and unjust
wars. In real terms, there is no
such things as just and unjust
qualitative distinction in any
war. Once a war is proclaimed,
the enemies are identified for
subjugation, conquest and
enslavement. A war is a calamity
and a social disorder, where the
state unleashes violence to
compel the opponents to subdue to
the states armed
machination. In the light of the
above definition the proclamation
and continuance of war against
the Tamils and the Tamil Tigers
are the reflection of the innate
aggression in the Sri Lankan
leadership.

War in Sri
Lanka is a search for political
glory, where the spoils of
victory seem to be the major
motivation. Recently, Chandrika
Kumaratunga in a clarion call to
the Sri Lankan troops, declared,
Your stirring spirit is
born out of patriotism and the
great urge to liberate the
motherland, I am sure, will not
waver before any power on earth.
I know that you possess the
capability and the determination
to defeat the enemy.
Chandrika Kumaratunges
declaration draws to the memory,
the statement made in the Chamber
of Deputies on 8 March 1918, by
Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929)
the two times Prime minister for
France -- 1906-1909 and 1917-20.
My home policy? I wage war.
My foreign policy? I wage war.
Always everywhere I wage war.

Dispossession
of the Tamils.

Ethnic
conflict in Sri Lanka is the
byproduct of the majoritarian
chauvinistic ethnocentricity.
This was the very President in
1998, unceremoniously disclaimed
the originality and descent of
the Tamils, but today she is
claiming to fight to safeguard
those very Tamils she earlier
dispossessed.

The word
original has driven
home the political theology of
the contemporary Sri Lanka, thus
opening up an age-old controversy
anew, by no less a person other
than the President of the
country. Original means,
pertaining to the origin or
beginning, also archaic - the
source or cause from which
something arises.

The word
came into political focus, when
the Sri Lankan President was on
an official visit to South
Africa, and when she replied to
the South African state
television interlocutor, They
are wanting a separate state - a
minority community, which is not
the original people of the
country-, a clear reference
to the Tamils. Subsequently, Sri
Lankan state-controlled
television Rupavahini,
reproduced the same interview, in
its evening 10 Oclock,
English news, on 5 September
1998.

By a
statement of this nature, it was
alleged that, the Sri Lankan
President, has indecorously
dispossessed the Tamils
their indigenous propensity and
originality, thus arousing the
masses to the awareness of the
oppressive nature of certain
events in the history, that this
statement would tend to generate.
Further it was alleged, that the
statement seeks as its primary
task, the awakening of the
Sinhalese masses from apathy, in
order to settle a score with the
Tamils. Statement, considered a
dereliction of truth, portrays
that, desperate people resort to
desperate measures, accordingly,
for ambivalence and split
personality.

Shibboleth
of this kind, was nothing new
forthcoming from the Sinhalese
leadership. During the last
fifty-one years of the
post-independence era, emotive
claims of ethnic nationalism
emerged to the forefront, as the
government led by the leaders of
the Sinhalese community,
proceeded to implement a fully
biased ethnic political agenda.
Since 1948, the moderate Tamil
leaders have made persistent
effort to claim their rights
through the accepted democratic
norms, but only to be met with
political chicanery, failure and
suppression by organized ruthless
ethnic violence unleashed with a
sickening regularity.

In 1948,
nearly one million Tamils in the
up-country were disfranchised and
made stateless and voteless.
Sinhala language and Buddhism
were given the foremost place,
and the government obstreperously
unleashed legal terrorism in the
beginning, to be followed by the
ethnic upheavals, to the present
military adventurism, to subdue
the legitimate aspirations of the
Tamils. Unfortunately, utterance
of the President, is another form
of a design, to discriminate the
citizens into original people and
non-original people, suspected a
continuation of an age long
historical anachronistic ploy,
reintroduced with innuendo and
malice to create majority
ethnocentrism.

A countrys
history usually begins with the
origin of the country. Sri Lankan
historians failed to record the
origin, the geographical pattern
and the study of the human
evolution in the country,
considering the changes that took
place in shaping the present
geographical structure and its
people. The study of the
historical- geography is
essential to shed light on the
origin of the country, that
separated from India and became
an insular land-mass.

The
Sinhalese base their pre-historic
reference on Dipavamsa and
Mahavamsa, the two earliest
ecclesiastical chronicles,
compiled in Pali, written with a
certain mission, to narrate how
the people were proselytized as
Buddhists and its propagation.
Dipavamsa, compiled in its extant
form, between the beginning of
the fourth and the first third of
the fifth century AD, aimed to
set forth the history of the
coming of Buddha to the island,
propagation of Buddhism, the
arrival of the relics and the Bo
tree, and the coming of Vijaya,
along with his band of 700 men.
In the second stanza of
Dipavamsa, the anonymous author
demanded: Listen
attentively to me, which inspires
joy and delight, which causes
serenity and gladness of the
mind, which comprises many
various forms.

Similarly,
the Mahavamsa compiled by,
Mahanama, (AD 496-513), a monk of
the Mahaveera chapter. Whilst
Dipavamsa presented the first
clumsy redaction in Pali verses,
Mahavamsa was the new treatment
of the same old subject. End of
each chapter, the priestly author
concludes Compiled for the
serene joy and emotion of the
pious. However, Mahavamsa
made killing a virtue in defence
of Buddhism and in its eulogy of
the victories of the Sinhala king
over the Tamil king, resulted in
viewing passionately the
Sinhalese - Tamil relationship,
as one of perpetual conflict and
confrontation.

The History
of a country has to begin from
certain definite date. Priestly
authors who compiled Buddhist
chronicles, began with the demise
of Buddha and the landing of
Vijaya with his men. Also, they
inserted unashamedly a prediction
in the mouth of Lord Buddha, to
raise the importance of the
Island - Vijaya, son of
king Sihabahu is come to Lanka
from the country of Lala,
together with seven hundred
followers. In Lanka, O lord of
gods, will my religion be
established, therefore carefully
protect him with his followers in
Lanka.

The
Buddhist chronicles failed to
give details of the ancient
history of the country, but
offered how the Sihala (Sinhala
people), the so called immigrant
race from North India, came into
existence, due to the totemic
origin of Vijayas father
Sihabahu.

This
resulted in the emergence of a
chimera, an unrealistic imaginary
notion that, Sinhalese being the
sons of the soil and all others,
non-Buddhists and the
non-Sinhalese, are allowed to
live on a temporary basis, by a
concession granted by the
arrogant master race.
Conveniently the Sinhalese
historian distorted the fact that
Tamils lived in Sri Lanka which
was called Ihlam, an
independent political entity up
to 1621. Let it be known that,
the present conflict is to
retrieve the very status of that
sovereign independent political
entity and the traditional
homeland of the Tamils.

Mediation
and facilitation:

To recall
to memory, Dr.G.S.Dhillon, the
leader of the Indian delegation
to the 42nd session of the UN
Commission on Human Rights,
summed up the plight of the
Tamils in the following words:

The
blatant killing of innocent
civilians, through ground, naval
and air actions are beginning to
look like victimization of the
entire community of Sri Lankan
Tamils by the Sri Lankan Security
forces. Attacks on innocent
civilians have been repeated too
often with ever increasing
severity. They have been picked
up on mere suspicion, brutally
tortured, some even killed .
These allegations against the Sri
Lankan armed forces are still
relevant.

India in
1987, tried to mediate the
conflict and later facilitate and
guarantee a peaceful resolution,
but unfortunately it has failed
miserably when it ordered its
soldiers to turn their guns
against the Tamils and Tamil
militants for whom they earlier
claimed to have come forward to
safeguard. Now, Norway has
emerged to broker peace. So far
it is not clear the role Norway
intends playing? It is still
unclear, whether Norway would
come forward, either to mediate,
or to facilitate and guarantee
the peace in the Island, where
the protracted conflict looms.

Presently,
India, even United States of
America have expressed their
willingness to mediate in the
ethnic conflict, if in case both
parties to conflict, request for
mediation or facilitation. This
shows the growing concern of the
international community regarding
the deteriorating situation, at a
sickening speed, with deadly
regularity. Whatever said and
done, without any prejudice to
these great nations, taking into
consideration the very fact that
Sri Lankan government for the
past 51 years has failed to honor
any of its pledges to the Tamils,
therefore any peace mediation has
to be based on a basic framework
resolution, mutually acceptable,
coming from the UN Security
Council as a binding resolution.

Those
countries, which come forward to
mediate or facilitate have to
play their role openly without
setting any pre-conditions.
Recently, the Indian leaders said
that India would continue to work
for a negotiated settlement
within the framework of the Sri
Lankan constitution. India
stressed that New Delhi would not
offer to broker peace between the
LTTE and Colombo unless asked for
by both the parties. India also
asserted that LTTE would not be
accorded recognition, even if it
established control over the
Jaffna peninsula. India's offer
with numerous pre-conditions,
reflected its attitude to impose
it's will and not its openness in
solving the problem. Already the
Sri Lankan President announced of
her proposal to adopt a new
constitution aimed at devolving
powers. Therefore it is unclear
of what India is trying to drive
at by stating of a negotiated
settlement within the framework
of the Sri Lankan constitution.

Before the
escalation of the war, Norway
tried to put together a plan
aimed at bringing the LTTE and
the Sri Lankan government to the
negotiating table. Erik Solheim,
who leads Oslos peace
initiative said: "We will
find a political solution which
devolves power and is also
democratic. He further
added, "We also have to
discuss this with India. We can't
have a permanent solution without
having an understanding with
India." United Nations
Security council has to come up
with a resolution to formulate a
frame-work agreement to settle
the conflict conclusively. In the
event, any one of the five
permanent members of the Security
Council decides to block such a
move in the Security Council,
using their veto powers, it would
amounts to their inconsiderate,
imperious inhuman attitude to the
genocidal campaign unleash
against the Tamils.

Political
quagmire continues:

As the war
in the Jaffna peninsula
continues, cracks have begun to
appear in Sri Lankan leaders'
position on the war in the north
with the Tamil Tigers with leader
of the opposition Ranil
Wickremesinghe clearly indicating
that he believes the imminent
loss of Jaffna to the LTTE means
doom for President Chandrika
Kumaratunga's government.

The
government, which has grown
increasingly sensitive on the
state of affairs in the North, is
desperate to halt the Tigers
advance at any cost unmindful of
the deadly consequences.
Desperateness has marred any
justifiable rationale behind
Chandrika Kumaratunges the
continuance of the war.

Politicians'
efforts in Colombo are now
shifting to a post-war scenario,
in which the only hypothetical
certainty is that an independent
Tamil state in the north-east
would not be recognized by India
or any other country. Any how
political experts are of the
opinion that, the situation might
change once a clearer picture
emerges, when the war is brought
to an end.

Therefore
the LTTE at some point would have
to negotiate, and they would
likely do so from a position of
strength, having taken over
Jaffna. The practical question
arises whether such negotiations
with the Sri Lankan Government
directly would bring about any
substantial resolution. Political
experts beliefs that a third
party mediated negotiation based
on a mutually accepted frame-work
resolution adopted by the UN
Security Council might be the
best way out for any workable
resolution to the conflict.

In
conclusion, if in case the Sri
Lankan government fails to
recognize the harsh realities and
refuse to compromise, then there
is the danger of war spilling to
other parts of the Island, other
than the north and east, where
death and destruction would be
greater than what is being
presently experienced.